Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP: Drink Driving Offence & Appropriate Sentencing

Edwin s/o Suse Nathen appealed against the District Court's decision for a drink driving offence under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. The High Court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, found the original sentence of a $3,000 fine and a two-year driving ban to be manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the disqualification period to 21 months and the fine to $2,500. The court addressed the appropriate benchmark sentence for Section 67(1)(b) offences and relevant sentencing factors.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against drink driving sentence. High Court reduces disqualification period to 21 months and fine to $2,500, finding initial sentence excessive.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal Partially UpheldPartial
April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Marshall Lim Yu Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Edwin s/o Suse NathenAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
April PhangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Marshall Lim Yu HuiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Nirmal SinghRaj Kumar & Rama

4. Facts

  1. On 17 November 2012, the appellant was stopped by traffic police officers for a spot check.
  2. The police officer noticed that the appellant smelled strongly of alcohol.
  3. A breathalyzer test was administered, and the appellant failed the test.
  4. A Breath Evidential Analyser test indicated 64 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
  5. This was 1.82 times the prescribed legal limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
  6. The appellant admitted to drinking a few glasses of beer before driving home.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 116 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 194
  2. PP v Edwin s/o Suse Nathen, , [2013] SGDC 174

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant stopped by traffic police for a spot check
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drink Driving
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of drink driving.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Driving under the influence of alcohol
      • Exceeding prescribed alcohol limit
  2. Appropriate Sentencing
    • Outcome: The court reduced the disqualification period to 21 months and the fine to $2,500.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Manifestly excessive sentence
      • Mitigating factors
      • Aggravating factors
      • Benchmark sentencing
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 1 SLR(R) 453
      • [2001] 2 SLR(R) 384
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240
      • Magistrate’s Appeal No 234 of 2009
      • Magistrate’s Appeal No 269 of 2008
      • Magistrate’s Appeal No 213 of 2010
      • Magistrate’s Appeal No 197 of 2010
      • [2008] SGDC 79
      • [2013] SGDC 125
      • [2010] SGDC 121
      • [2010] 4 SLR 788
      • [2005] SGDC 24
      • [2007] SGDC 283
      • [2012] SGDC 303
      • [2011] SGDC 191
      • [2008] SGDC 173
      • [2012] SGDC 93
      • [2010] 3 SLR 240
      • [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653
      • [2011] 1 SLR 481
      • [2011] 2 SLR 1057
      • [2005] 3 SLR(R) 570
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265
      • [2009] SGDC 168
      • [2010] SGDC 379
      • [2006] SGDC 233
      • Magistrate’s Appeal No 277 of 2009
      • [2008] SGDC 272
      • [2007] SGDC 20
      • [2011] SGDC 358
      • [2010] SGDC 415

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence
  2. Reduction of fine
  3. Reduction of disqualification period

9. Cause of Actions

  • Driving under the influence of drink

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Traffic Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ong Beng Soon v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited to establish that a harsher sentence should ordinarily be imposed where the alcohol level is higher.
Silvalingam Sinnasamy v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 384SingaporeCited to establish that a harsher sentence should ordinarily be imposed where the alcohol level is higher.
PP v Lee Meng SoonHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 240SingaporeCited for factors affecting the decision to impose imprisonment rather than a fine for first offenders under s 67(1).
V Mahetheran v PPHigh CourtYesMagistrate’s Appeal No 234 of 2009SingaporeCited as an example where the disqualification order was reduced to 12 months on appeal for a borderline case.
Jason Tan v PPHigh CourtYesMagistrate’s Appeal No 269 of 2008SingaporeCited as an example where the disqualification order was reduced to 12 months on appeal for a borderline case.
Chris-Lyn Ng v PPHigh CourtYesMagistrate’s Appeal No 213 of 2010SingaporeCited as an example where a fine of $2,000 and a disqualification order of 18 months was imposed on appeal.
Mohamad Faizal bin Mohd Alias v PPHigh CourtYesMagistrate’s Appeal No 197 of 2010SingaporeCited as an example where a fine of $2,000 and a disqualification order of 18 months was imposed on appeal.
PP v Ho Shee YingDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 79SingaporeCited as an example where a fine of $3,000 and a two-year disqualification order was upheld on appeal.
PP v Kunath Prasanth MenonDistrict CourtYes[2013] SGDC 125SingaporeCited as an example where a fine of $2,000 and a two-year disqualification order was not appealed against.
PP v Tan Lee PhengDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 121SingaporeCited as an example where a fine of $3,000 and a two-year disqualification order was upheld on appeal.
Thrumoorthy s/o Ganapathi Pillai v PPHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 788SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 80 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a disqualification order of two years was upheld on appeal.
PP v Tan Peng Yew MelvinDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 24SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 84 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $3,800 and a disqualification order of 30 months was upheld on appeal.
PP v Selvarajah s/o MurugayaDistrict CourtYes[2007] SGDC 283SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 86 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $3,500 and a disqualification order of three years was upheld on appeal.
PP v Iskandar Mirzah Bin AripinDistrict CourtYes[2012] SGDC 303SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 87 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $3,000 and a disqualification order of 30 months was upheld on appeal.
PP v Lim Chuan LamDistrict CourtYes[2011] SGDC 191SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 93 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $4,000 and a disqualification order of three years was upheld on appeal.
PP v Ng Choon Hoe KellyDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 173SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 100 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $3,000 and a disqualification order of three years was upheld on appeal.
PP v Sivaji Rajah s/o MariappanDistrict CourtYes[2012] SGDC 93SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 106 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $4,000 and a disqualification order of three years was imposed.
Lim Kay Han Irene v PPHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 240SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 129 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a disqualification order of four years was upheld on appeal but a two-week imprisonment sentence was set aside and substituted with a $5,000 fine.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PPHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 653SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should ordinarily utilise the full range of the permitted fines according to the gravity of the offence before it.
PP v Chow Yee SzeHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 481SingaporeCited for the principle that the lack of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
PP v AOMHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1057SingaporeCited for the principle that the lack of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
Cheong Wai Keong v PPHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 570SingaporeCited as an example where the fact that an offender only drove for a short distance was not a “special reason” to justify the non-imposition of a disqualification order under s 67(2), but he then imposed only a one-year disqualification order notwithstanding the fairly high level of alcohol in the offender’s breath.
Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v PPHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 265SingaporeCited for the principle that the court ought to have due regard for the motivation leading to the commission of the offence.
PP v Woo Keen MengDistrict CourtYes[2009] SGDC 168SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 77 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath, and a fine of $3,000 and a disqualification order of two years was upheld on appeal.
PP v Vasudevan s/o ThambyrajahDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 379SingaporeCited as an example where the level of alcohol was 70 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath and a fine of $3,500 and a disqualification order of two years was imposed notwithstanding that the appellant claimed trial.
PP v Ng Poh TiongDistrict CourtYes[2006] SGDC 233SingaporeCited as an example where the District Judge considered that it was a mitigating factor that the offender had only driven his car a distance of two feet into another parking lot.
Kim Seung Shik v PPHigh CourtYesMagistrate’s Appeal No 277 of 2009SingaporeCited as an example where the offender had a breath alcohol concentration of 117 microgrammes per 100 millilitres and collided with another vehicle. He was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment on appeal, but was only disqualified from holding a driving license for two years.
PP v Sim Yew Jen JonathanDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 272SingaporeCited as an example where the offender, who had a breath alcohol concentration of 57 microgrammes per 100 millilitres, was involved in a collision with a traffic light pole, causing it to be uprooted. He was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment and a two year disqualification order was imposed.
PP v Ng Fook LiatDistrict CourtYes[2007] SGDC 20SingaporeCited as an example where minor collisions had taken place but where the offenders had been disqualified for only two years notwithstanding this aggravating factor.
PP v Azhar Bin AbdullahDistrict CourtYes[2011] SGDC 358SingaporeCited as an example where minor collisions had taken place but where the offenders had been disqualified for only two years notwithstanding this aggravating factor.
PP v Ngiam Hock ThiamDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 415SingaporeCited as an example where the accused was convicted after trial of an offence under s 70(4)(a) of the RTA for failing to provide a breath specimen to a police officer at a police station.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(1)(b)Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Drink driving
  • Breath alcohol concentration
  • Disqualification order
  • Sentencing benchmark
  • Mitigating factors
  • Aggravating factors
  • Road Traffic Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Drink driving
  • Road Traffic Act
  • Sentencing
  • Disqualification
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Road Traffic Act95
Drink Driving90
Sentencing60
Criminal Procedure50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Traffic Law
  • Sentencing Guidelines